Judge Rules in Favor of Haines City Commissioners in Recall Effort

By MARY HURSTNYT REGIONAL MEDIA GROUP

Monday

Oct 24, 2011 at 2:46 PMOct 24, 2011 at 3:14 PM

The effort to recall two Haines City commissioners is dead. Circuit Judge Randall G. McDonald ruled Friday that the conduct of commissioners Joanna Wilkinson and Horace West was not misfeasance, the legal threshold needed to proceed with a recall election.

BARTOW | The effort to recall two Haines City commissioners is dead.

Circuit Judge Randall G. McDonald ruled Friday that the conduct of commissioners Joanna Wilkinson and Horace West was not misfeasance, the legal threshold needed to proceed with a recall election.

Representatives of the Haines City Recall Committee, the group trying to oust the commissioners, said Monday they won't appeal the ruling.

The committee's decision ends the recall drive that began in July, generated by anger over the $330,000 severance agreement city commissioners gave to former city manager Ann Toney-Deal.

Robin Gibson, the lawyer for Wilkinson and West, praised the court ruling.

"The decision was in compliance with the city charter and state law because the majority of the City Commission had exclusive authority over the city manager, including hiring, firing and compensation," Gibson said. "It was well within their discretion and they exercised their judgment."

Cliff Shepard, the committee's attorney, said his clients were disappointed.

"They've worked hard to try to make the case that the voters who elected (Wilkinson and West) should be the ones that decide if they should stay in office," Shepard said.

Shepard said aside from filing an appeal, the committee could have filed a motion for rehearing of the issues or they could start over with a recall petition with different grounds, or its members could decide to drop their effort entirely.

Bill Watts, a recall committee spokesman, said the committee knew the options to proceed with a recall would take time and money.

"We'll have to deal with this at election time," he said.

"It has made all of us citizens aware of the fact that there is no limit to the financial obligations that our city commissioners can put into effect, even if it is for their friends," Watts and Committee Chairman Gerald Amos said in a written statement. "As our attorney stated, they can vote to ‘line the streets with gold if they like.' "

The joint statement said the matter should have never gone to court.

"The citizens voted them into office, they should be able to vote them out," the statement said. "The citizens are now aware and will have an opportunity to change things at the next few elections."

Wilkinson and West filed a lawsuit Aug. 31 in an effort to stop the recall campaign.

The recall drive was fueled by outrage at the severance package former Toney-Deal received after resigning in late April. City commissioners approved the package in a 3-2 vote. The third vote came from former City Commissioner Philip Hinkle, who had been defeated in the April 5 municipal election but was still on the commission when the severance was approved.

The Haines City Recall Committee formed in July after learning Toney-Deal was also receiving unemployment compensation in addition to her severance package.

The judge's ruling said there was nothing improper or illegal when the two commissioners voted for the severance package.

"In fact, their act of voting was a valid exercise of their legislative judgment" allowed in the city's charter, McDonald's ruling states.

McDonald said in his ruling that the court is a gatekeeper with respect to recall elections.

"Recall elections are extraordinary proceeding. In essence, the Court is impinging upon the regular elective process. Thus the Court proceeded with extreme caution," the ruling states.

McDonald said in his ruling it was not up to the court to decide whether the severance package was excessive or whether Wilkinson and West's judgment was in error, citing two previous court cases in which state appeals courts ruled that errors in judgment cannot be sufficient grounds for recall, nor can legitimate and authorized actions, "no matter how unpopular."

"The voters can decide those issues when the next regular election is held," McDonald's ruling states.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.